CCMIN052272 - Laserfiche WebLink

PUBLIC HEARINGS Mayor Reid declared the public hearing open and asked for comments from the staff. Mr. Edgar reported that the City Council has had two work sessions on the budget already and recommended that one more session will be needed prior to June 5th. Mr. Edgar suggested that after comments-Save been received at this public hearing from the audience, that the CityCouncil continue this matter until June 5th. Mr. Ted Bogardus stated that although he has not seen the budget, he would like to speak to the items of bike, hiking, and equestrian trails. He stated that Mr. Castro was in his area last week to show slides of these trails which were very impressive, but founf out that it would be 10 years before this could become a reality. He complained of Foothill Road being too narrow to safely ride a bicycle. He urged the City Council to spend some money to widen this road. Councilman Mori replied that he knew there were many facilities the people in Pleasanton desired, but the City has limited funds and have to set priorities for these things. Mr. Bogardus also spoke to the fact that he felt too much money was planned to be spent of the Park for Youth Sports which would only benefit a small group of boys. Mayor Reid replied that over 2,500 boys sign up for soccer and Jr. foot- ball alone. Councilman Herlihy added that this park was not limited to any particular group° Mr. Edgar replied that $20,000 from the "bedroom-tax" was allocated for the first stages of turfing and sprink- ling. Dr. Howard Long asked where the revenue is coming from. Mr. Edgar ans- wered that the budget is predicated on the issuance of 800 Building Permits, a possible. increase of 10¢ on the tax rate, sewer fees and a bedroom tax. There being no further remarks from the public, Mayor Reid continued the public hearing to June 5th at 7:00 P.M. MATTERS CONTINUED FOR DECISION Application of the Planning Commission Re: Proposed Ordinance of the Cit~ of Pleasantoh amehdin~ c~apter '2 of Tit~e II of the. O~'dinance Code of t~e e~t~ of'Pleasanton '5~' t'he 13.5 providing for an RMR Multiple Family Reside~t~'al Overlay District and" fo~ "'re~ulati0'ns ~n~equire~ents with...'respe'Ct theretO'.' Mr. Castro reviewed his report, dated May 18, 1972, which gave support- ing data regarding this proposed ordinance. In summarizing his report, Mr. Castro concluded that because of the high prices of single-family homes and the lack of variety offered, ,people moving into this valley in the moderate income bracket do not have an extensive .choice of housing. He stated that he felt that this will make the units now labeled as condominiom or town-house generate more children than originally estimated under the concept presented by the developer. Mr. Castro added that for obvious reasons the Plam~- ing Department is of the opinion that there should be a definite di-4- tinction between these projects, single-family detached homes and apartments in development standards, which mean, parking ratios, densities, interior designs, open space and recreation facilities. He further stated that a delineation of compatibility with surrounding residential uses must be a finding. He opined that by development of 2. 5-22-72